[wadiz] Transparency Report Vol. 12

CASE 01 NFT Pre-sale Case Study

Investment / Capital Markets Act ( Non-Disclosure)

01 · Detection

AI Monitoring

AI monitoring identified a project that promised to give more NFTs the higher the contribution amount.

02 · Review

Operator Review

We reviewed whether the distribution of NFTs proportional to donation amounts and the appeal to “first-come, first-served” and “scarcity” deviated from the purpose of Rewards and effectively constituted an investment product.

03 · Action

Project Hidden

As there was no response to our request for clarification, we immediately removed the project from view before it could be displayed to supporters.

CASE 01 Detailed Case Study

Although it was marketed as a Rewards program, the structure was an “NFT presale.”

A project claimed to create digital assets and promoted a Rewards structure where larger contributions would result in bulk distributions of assets categorized by tier. By emphasizing “early membership, first-mover advantage, and scarcity,” it stoked expectations that early entry equated to value. However, the platform on which these assets were to be used had not yet been developed, and the description of intellectual property rights could have been misinterpreted as implying that those rights had already been secured. Wadiz requested clarification on the actual feasibility of the rewards and the accuracy of the rights statements, but received no response by the deadline. Judging that the reward structure itself was inconsistent with the purpose of the funding, wadiz immediately removed the project from public view.

Through post-launch monitoring, we identified a project where a maker was selling high-value rewards promising to pass on their expertise. Given the high value of these rewards, wadiz reviewed the materials to be provided as rewards in advance to prevent potential risks. As a result, we found that the quality of the materials was insufficient relative to the fundraising goal, and some of the content emphasized in the Story was not included in the actual deliverables.

If the value received is not clearly commensurate with the price, it can lead to supporter dissatisfaction. However, since this reward included a service in which the maker participated directly, wadiz determined that the actual value could vary depending on the supporter. Accordingly, wadiz advised the maker to restructure the project by elevating the consulting service—which had been offered as an add-on—to the main reward and reclassifying the materials as a supplementary reward.

 

Through post-launch monitoring, we discovered that a project advertised features such as sweat odor removal (deodorizing properties) and shape retention after washing, yet operated its detail page without providing any test reports or certification documents to support these claims. By making definitive statements about performance without objective evidence, there was a risk that consumers might mistake these claims for actual performance.

Wadiz determined that the advertising claims emphasized performance without objective evidence and requested that the maker submit relevant supporting documentation, such as test reports. Although the maker submitted the materials, the submitted documents alone were insufficient to fully support all the performance claims used in the advertisement. Consequently, wadiz requested the removal or modification of those claims, and the maker has since completed the necessary revisions.